ATTACHMENT 4 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE Rockville, Maryland 20850 Marc Elrich County Executive August 14, 2020 Dear Chair Anderson and members of the Planning Board, The attached document presents the Executive branch’s comments on the June 11, 2020 draft of the Thrive Montgomery 2050 proposed amendment to the General Plan. Also enclosed is my letter to the County Council asking for a six-month postponement in the General Plan review schedule. I am requesting the postponement to allow the County to focus its resources in the immediate future on the public health challenges and economic ramifications of the pandemic. Simply put, the Executive departments are otherwise focused on dealing with Covid-19 and would welcome more time to collaborate with the Planning Department to resolve the many issues they identify in the draft plan. Here are my additional comments and questions on the draft plan: I. The Process—The Purpose of the General Plan, renamed “Thrive Montgomery 2050.” The General Plan and amendments (1964, 1969, 1993) tell a story of the County’s history and growth, presenting a shared vision of the residents, Executive, and Council. The plan’s vision is inspiring, concise, and written in everyday language for any resident or member of government to read casually. Until now. Thrive Montgomery 2050 is a document for planners, weighed down by “planners’ speak,” with far too many goals, policies and actions intended for now and seemingly mandatory. It sets out what MNCPPC is going to do—not the County--with 72 references to “study, create, develop, prepare or initiate” something, all of which are initiated by MNCPPC. One of the Executive departments commented that “There are no actions to ensure collaboration between County departments, municipalities, and agencies that operate in the County.” I hope we can change that. The draft is confusing - the reader doesn’t know whether a recommendation is current policy or brand new. The Executive departments’ comments identify the many recommendations that are already County policy, and already being implemented. Again, more cooperation and collaboration would clarify this. montgomerycountymd.gov/311 240-773-3556 TTY August 14, 2020 Page 2 of 4 The draft goes well beyond land use with comments unfriendly to community participation in land use matters – see page 39 which states that “Communities hostile to new development have become highly adept at using the public process to fight and block building.” It also makes a recommendation to chill public participation by asking participants to sign a pledge. Action 2.2.1.d: Create a civic engagement Code of Conduct in partnership with community leaders and request that all Montgomery Planning staff, residents and partners sign and agree to uphold these standards. A request from the government to sign a document is intimidating. It will chill efforts to seek input from immigrant residents and undermine all of the efforts the County has made over the years to receive input from a wide group of affected residents. And, it is an insult to the thousands of residents who are already participating. This kind of intimidation does not belong in any MNCPPC document, much less the General Plan. Councilmember Navarro showed the County the way to a meaningful public dialogue with the participation she fostered in the Veirs Mill Sector Plan – we should follow her lead. II. The Substance of the Plan The essence of this plan is that over the next 30 years the County will achieve Economic Health, Community Equity, and Environmental Resilience if the County commits to more housing in compact dense development in Complete Communities with 15-minute living where lots of services are available within a 15-minute walk or bike ride. The plan focuses on walking and biking as priorities in the County’s Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). It also focuses on adding attainable (market rate) Missing Middle[1], housing types, with a belief that if enough compact, market rate housing is built, there will be Equity in housing throughout the County. Jobs and economic development seem to be more of an afterthought – page 27 simply states that “the entire Thrive Montgomery 2050 Plan is an economic development strategy.” There is little discussion of prioritization of resources – something that may come in September when the Implementation Section is added. Resource allocation is a critical concern for me. We will be sending the required Financial Impact Statement to the District Council within 60 days after the Planning Board transmits its Public Hearing Draft to the Council. OMB requests a meeting with MNCPPC and other agencies in order to start this process. As County Executive, my top priorities for the CIP are transit and housing for the lowest range of incomes. Because transit confers the greater benefit to the greatest number of residents, transit brings residents closer to jobs and increases opportunities for housing that is less dependent on cars. Walking and bicycling are important, too, but they cannot supersede public transportation. August 14, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Housing is my other highest priority, as it is in MNCPPC’s summary of community outreach for Thrive Montgomery. I am open to all housing types, market rate or otherwise, but the focus should be on housing for those with the greatest need. I do not agree with MNCPPC that merely building more market rate housing will let the County achieve its Equity goals. I am committed to achieving Equity in housing, education, and jobs through a variety of funding and planning tools. These goals have been at the core of my public service. In order to add Missing Middle Housing, the plan recommends rezoning parts of the single family neighborhoods without being clear about the location, other than a preference for being near transit. The plan is vague, too vague, not only on location, but also on specifics on how the County resolves the stubborn issue of Equity. There needs to be a bigger conversation than the narrow focus presented in the plan. The plan needs to identify generally where this new housing will be located, and then the County needs to come together to put its resources toward making the Equity goal a reality over the next 30 years. Thrive advocates not just for housing, but housing in Complete Communities,15-minute living with lots of services within a 15-minute walk or bike ride. The cost of transforming—how many of our communities?--into 15-minute living is not mentioned, nor are the trade-offs. For Equity, are we better off with 15-minute living or investing in early childhood education and schools? This plan is silent on education and on how to assure that there is complete Equity in education, even though that’s where the multi-generational benefit is. There’s an underlying assumption that “Complete Communities” are the answer to economic development, but that is not clear, demonstrated or proven. People want to work near where they live if possible, but they also want to live in areas/neighborhoods with good schools, recreation, parks and other amenities. The plan spends lots of time on Complete Communities without explaining where jobs are located, and how jobs are part of the 15-minute living. The plan needs to better explain how Complete Communities fit with our residents’ employment. With regard to the environment, the plan needs to address the full range of environmental concerns—not just climate change—including the environmental impacts of density, even compact density. In particular, there needs to be a more thorough recognition of the need to replace old infrastructure, including stormwater management, sewer, water, roads, bridges and culverts, as well as the infrastructure requirements for the compact, dense housing. And as DEP pointed out in its comments, there must be a much greater emphasis throughout the plan on restoring the tree canopy. There also must be a recognition of the environmental toll of tearing down existing buildings (often mis-labelled “beyond their useful life”) to build new buildings. I am grateful to my Executive Departments for their many thoughtful comments even as they struggle with added responsibilities for managing and defeating Covid-19. I hope you will engage them in discussions of the many issues they raise. I also extend my thanks to the Planning Board and Planning staff who have worked on this plan. With greater cooperation and August 14, 2020 Page 4 of 4 mutual understanding—and with undivided time for full discussion with the community—I believe we will define a better, more equitable future for all County residents. Sincerely, Marc Elrich County Executive ME/mw/ci c: Gwen Wright, Director of Planning Khalid Afzal, Special Projects Manager Tanya Stern, Deputy Planning Director Caroline McCarthy, Division Chief for Research and Strategic Projects [1]Missing Middle is defined as 2-6 unit housing. MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MCPB Item # 3 Date: 6/11/2020 Thrive Montgomery 2050 – Briefing on Draft Vision, Goals, Policies and Actions Khalid Afzal, Special Projects Coordinator, Director’s Office [email protected], 301.495.4650 Caroline McCarthy, Chief, Research & Special Projects, [email protected], 301.495.4506 Tanya Stern, Deputy Director, Montgomery County Planning Department, [email protected] Gwen Wright, Director, Montgomery County Planning Department, [email protected] Completed: 6/4/2020 Introduction: Montgomery Planning staff presented the draft Thrive Montgomery 2050 Vision and Goals to the Planning Board on April 16, 2020. The Board asked the staff to be bold and more clearly state the hard choices we will need to make if want to achieve the desired outcomes of a thriving county with strong economy, equitable growth and a healthy and sustainable environment.